Government Enforcement, Investigations & Litigation

An allegation of wrongdoing levied by a government agency can be the most serious legal challenge a company or individual faces, particularly when it involves a criminal prosecution, administrative or legislative hearing, or other civil/regulatory proceedings. Our government enforcement, investigations and litigation lawyers bring substantial capabilities to the coordination of an effective response to these significant matters.

We successfully navigate multiple, simultaneous challenges by representing clients in parallel civil and criminal proceedings and concurrent lawsuits, regulatory actions and government investigations. We are well-prepared to handle the anticipated uptick in state attorneys general actions, and False Claims Act (FCA) claims, including in the healthcare and government contracting industries. We are equally equipped to tackle shareholder suits; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) or Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforcement proceedings; as well as IRS civil enforcement or criminal investigations. Clients regularly call on us to conduct comprehensive internal investigations, create and implement effective compliance programs, guide them through complex enforcement and regulatory actions, and to defend against allegations of white collar crime.

Precision and Insight Shaped by Years of Experience

Bolstered by a roster of well-versed trial lawyers — including some former prosecutors and governmental agency counsel — our team provides comprehensive strategic leadership based on decades of experience to navigate, neutralize or overcome the challenges we are addressing for a client. We provide real-world, practical assessments of the potential outcomes that identify the actual, likely consequences of a government/regulatory inquiry that shape our strategies and allow our clients to properly allocate their resources.

Given our experience, we can often effectively resolve many serious matters before formal legal action or an investigation becomes public by obtaining declinations of prosecution, deferred prosecution agreements, immunity or other resolutions that enable the client to avoid or minimize penalties. However, when civil, criminal or regulatory litigation needs arise, our enforcement lawyers are ready to fight back. We effectively represent clients in all phases of criminal or regulatory proceedings, including in all manner of government enforcement investigations and grand jury proceedings. When necessary, our team brings great strategic insight and real-world trial experience to every engagement. We are also well-versed in representing clients before licensing boards and investigative commissions and in appellate proceedings when necessary.

Our Comprehensive Representation

Our suite of services spans compliance counseling, internal investigations, securities and regulatory enforcement, as well as white collar criminal defense.

Compliance Counseling

We design and implement comprehensive compliance programs on behalf of corporate and nonprofit clients to prevent, detect and rectify misconduct. To meet our clients’ business needs, we implement robust training sessions and audit procedures to minimize the risk of future investigations or allegations of wrongdoing. Such compliance programs are often aimed at avoiding violations related to insider trading laws, securities regulations, the FCA, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), tax regulations, cybersecurity requirements, environmental regulations and healthcare regulations.

Internal Investigations

Our experience with internal investigations runs the gamut, from examining allegations of financial fraud to analyzing compliance with a variety of state and federal regulations. By virtue of the firm’s financial-services-related practices, we are well-versed in conducting internal investigations in matters involving securities, financial regulations and a broad spectrum of related state and federal crimes.

Securities & Regulatory Enforcement

Our securities and regulatory enforcement team brings an informed, common-sense approach to any regulatory enforcement matter. Our broad understanding of and experience representing clients in the financial services industry provides us with the unique ability to offer clients a multidisciplinary, customized team approach when confronting a complex internal investigation, regulatory examination, investigation or enforcement action.

White Collar Criminal Defense

Our white collar criminal defense team handles both pre- and post-indictment criminal representation of individuals and entities in state and federal court cases as well as matters pending before state and federal regulatory agencies engaged in government enforcement investigations and adversarial proceedings.

Representative Matters

Led an internal investigation for a broker-dealer involving allegations of anti-competitive behavior in bids for esoteric securities.
Represented the independent trustees of a mutual fund in a litigated SEC action involving alleged violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 Liquidity Rule.
In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, represented the only defendant who was found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States in an amount exceeding $10 million in which the IRS prosecuted individuals associated with the Commonwealth Trust Co. for allegedly marketing “abusive trust” tax shelters (United States v. Crim).
Provided compliance counseling to a company in the financial services industry relating to SEC regulations.
Negotiated a no-admission-of-liability settlement on behalf of a pharmaceutical company in connection with a civil FCA matter investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case originated from a qui tam complaint where the government initially sought damages well in excess of $400 million. The case was resolved for approximately 4% of the initial damages assessment and a corporate integrity agreement was reached with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, that avoided any debarment or exclusion sanctions.
Represented a financial services industry executive charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York with hacking into his former employer's computer system to steal confidential information, which resulted in the government dropping its felony charge against the client.
Represented investment advisers in two SEC inquiries involving potential violations of the Investment Company Act Custody Rule.
Provided compliance counseling to a medical practice seeking advice on medical billing and FCA compliance.
Led an internal investigation on behalf of a U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) contractor being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and DOD for contracting fraud and FCA allegations.
Represented an investment adviser in an SEC investigation involving cross-trades and valuation.

Notable Experience

View All

Secures SEC Dismissal in First-Ever Liquidity Rule Enforcement Action

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voluntarily dismissed charges with prejudice against two mutual fund independent trustees in the agency’s first enforcement action brought pursuant to the Liquidity Rule (Rule 22e-4) promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Act). The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against registered investment adviser Pinnacle Advisors, two of its officers and two independent trustees of a mutual fund that Pinnacle advised. The SEC alleged that the independent trustees aided and abetted the mutual fund’s purported misclassification of illiquid securities in violation of the Liquidity Rule. Stradley Ronon argued on behalf of the independent trustees that the SEC had no legal basis for its aiding and abetting charges as the independent trustees did not write, review, or even see the liquidity classifications that formed the basis for those charges, did not substantially assist the alleged violation, and otherwise complied with all of their obligations pursuant to the Liquidity Rule. Stradley Ronon further argued that the agency lacked the necessary congressional authority pursuant to the Act to promulgate the Liquidity Rule. The challenge to the agency’s authority to promulgate the Liquidity Rule led the Court to order additional briefing to address the framework for interpreting federal statutes established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Stradley Ronon re-filed its motion to dismiss all charges on April 28 arguing that the plain text of the statute did not grant rulemaking authority related to fund liquidity and resubmitted its arguments challenging the SEC’s failure to state a claim for aiding and abetting liability against the independent trustees. Following the briefing, the SEC agreed to dismiss all charges against the independent trustees with prejudice, meaning that the SEC cannot refile the charges. “We are very pleased that the court took the merits of our arguments seriously and that the SEC responded by dismissing the complaint,” said the NYSA Fund independent trustees. “We always believed in the strength of our case and are grateful for our lead attorney Jan Folena and Stradley Ronon’s guidance, knowledge, and litigation capabilities that made this outcome possible.” Lead trial counsel Jan Folena was assisted by Eric Porter, Samantha Kats, Sara Crovitz, Dave Grim, and Eric Purple.

Featured Publications

View All

U.S. Criminal Tariff Prosecutions in 2026: What International Businesses and Domestic Importers Need to Know

Key Takeaways from the PACDL White Collar Practice Seminar: Understanding the New SEC Enforcement Landscape

At the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) White Collar Practice Seminar earlier this month, partner Jan Folena, co-chair of Stradley Ronon’s securities and regulatory enforcement practice, shared her insights during a session on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement. Jan discussed the current enforcement landscape for the recently installed SEC management, how the commission’s priorities have evolved, and what to expect as the SEC’s focus shifts under the second Trump administration. Below are the top three takeaways from her presentation: Accurate Disclosures Are Essential Transparency remains the cornerstone of investor trust. Firms should prioritize clear and precise disclosures, particularly as new products emerge. The SEC’s standard investor protection mandates require rigorous adherence. The SEC’s focus on increased access to private markets and the use of financial technology exemplifies the critical need for accuracy, where misleading disclosures or technology failures can lead to significant enforcement risks. Regulatory Exams Are Increasingly Central There has been a shift in how regulatory oversight is conducted. Many functions traditionally handled through enforcement actions are likely to be addressed during routine and targeted exams. Regulators follow a defined checklist during these reviews, making it imperative for firms to maintain proactive compliance programs. Early identification of appropriate legal arguments and corrective measures during exams can prevent costly enforcement proceedings. Compliance Is an Ongoing Commitment Enforcement risks do not dissipate quickly; federal statutes of limitations can extend from five to 10 years for securities law violations. Avoid complacency, especially during periods of administrative change or uncertainty. Sustained compliance efforts are necessary to mitigate long-term risks and avoid enforcement actions that may arise years after an issue occurs. For firms navigating the complexities of securities enforcement today, Jan’s presentation underscored the evolving regulatory environment and the importance of accurate disclosures, examination readiness, and the ability to identify and present legal arguments at every stage of regulatory scrutiny.